waldo lemieux wrote:He pulled the trigger on Binladen. Kept the economy from going down the toilet. Most importantly, look at where the VA was in GWs reign and where it is now! He may not be your favorite color but let a few rays of reality in......Waldo

Oh yeah, I forgot...everything is coming up roses!

What kind of drugs are you people on? He said if unemployment wasn't below 4%, he shouldn't be reelected yet with over 8%, they elected him anyway.

There's been so much money printed, they are thinking of changing what goes into the coins because the raw material costs more than what the face value of the coin is.

We're 4 years closer to Greece and this is what's known as a "good job" to the Left.

As always when playing "cards" one frequently throws a sacrificial offering on the table to find out just what the other guys are holding. My card ,alas, was played in error as I can plainly see from the response that race was not a factor in your dislike of the president ,rather it was a well thought out and substantiated list of grievances

Merry xmas,really...

Rectum

Is this #4? The New Year hasn't even started either.

Anyway, it's not such a big secret that Romney didn't WANT to be President - Ann has said it several times.

I recall an interview in which she said this: "Neither of us WANTS to do this, but we feel it's our duty to in light of the current situation. We prayed on it, and we made our decision."

Wish I could find .. or remember ... where she said that. I'm not that motivated to look, but it's out there somewhere - I definitely remember her saying it.

I still believe he lost due to the corrupt Chicago style tactics used by this administration and his minions. Sadly, nobody will ever be able to prove it. They're too good at this crap.

I find it funny you guys point out Romney's money when the O man had more money in both his election runs then anyone in history. The sad thing is a whole bunch of it was ours from union, banks, and a few Solyndra type scams.

Still not sure what Romney's money had to do with his character. He is loaded and knows how to manage money so what, Isn't that what we needed. I do think part of why he lost was his ethics did not allow him to play as dirty. He held back way too much in the 2nd debate.

Flyer5 wrote:Still not sure what Romney's money had to do with his character. He is loaded and knows how to manage money so what, Isn't that what we needed. I do think part of why he lost was his ethics did not allow him to play as dirty. He held back way too much in the 2nd debate.

He was a vulture capitolist. They don't have any ethics. As head of Bain he shipped way more jobs to India amd China than he ever created and indebted several companies to the hilt after take over and then paid himself and investors with the money and bankrupted and sold off the assets. People didn't forget those. Then he campaigned on jobs and debt!

He would say or do anything and changes his positions 180 degrees on just about anything and everything. That's why he lost. All he could do was criticize without even having )or at least revealing his plans to change anything and people were not willing to have any faith in that. But this is all old ground and water under the bridge. He lost, it's over, he can go back to pillaging if he chooses.

What is hilarious is that those who use the pejorative "vulture capitalism" have it EXACTLY right! Vultures eat carrion. The businesses that vulture capitalists take over are weak, dying, soon-to-be carcasses. Not every business deal that Bain Capital engaged in was in that role, but they certainly sought bargains. Their mentality is buy cheap, fix up and sell (or liquidate upon failure). Their intentions are certainly not evil. Their intentions are capitalistic. In the cases of vulture capitalism that I have reviewed, the businesses that have survived went on to perennial health. The businesses that failed would have failed anyway--they were in dying businesses due to technology or demographics, or were so badly damaged by previous management that their reputations were tarnished. In those cases, "vulture capitalists" employed the workers for several years longer than they would have been employed otherwise by that firm. The venture capital firms pay themselves handsomely because THEY OWN THE BUSINESS and need to recoup their investment as quickly as possible because their risk in taking on failing businesses is very high. They also line their pockets because they do it for the money. Venture capitalist who specialize in take-overs are always branded the bad guy. The reality is that usually the business model is failing.

Romney was vilified by those who hate capitalism and wish to engage this nation in mob rule.

They don't recoup anything, they leverage, borrow on & rape then leave the carcass to rot. He didn't invest his own but convinced others, the inside crowd had nothing to lose so whichever way to gain the most the quickest was the direction they took. Yep, they did it for the employees own good.

You are exactly correct in what Bain Capital and what many other vulture capitalists do. They reap the rewards and rightly so. What got Romney in trouble was the implication he could also create jobs based on his experience as a venture capitalist. His venture capitalist experience was in fixing up broken companies. The venture capitalists that provide the capital for new start up companies, usually high tech, are the ones that create jobs or in some cases entire new industries. That's not at all what Bain did. Hence, voters that knew the difference didn't buy his rhetoric.

That's not at all what Bain did. Hence, voters that knew the difference didn't buy his rhetoric.

So because Bain was a particular type of investment business, he had no credibility as to how to create jobs? He at least was involved in industry and knew how business creates jobs. Obuma never even had a job, let alone understand how to create one. And look at his success rate of funding business. Oh thats right, that was just money laundering for his campaign through the unions and Green energy companies that were nothing but fronts.

mikeandgerry wrote:What is hilarious is that those who use the pejorative "vulture capitalism" have it EXACTLY right! Vultures eat carrion. The businesses that vulture capitalists take over are weak, dying, soon-to-be carcasses. Not every business deal that Bain Capital engaged in was in that role, but they certainly sought bargains. Their mentality is buy cheap, fix up and sell (or liquidate upon failure). Their intentions are certainly not evil. Their intentions are capitalistic. In the cases of vulture capitalism that I have reviewed, the businesses that have survived went on to perennial health. The businesses that failed would have failed anyway--they were in dying businesses due to technology or demographics, or were so badly damaged by previous management that their reputations were tarnished. In those cases, "vulture capitalists" employed the workers for several years longer than they would have been employed otherwise by that firm. The venture capital firms pay themselves handsomely because THEY OWN THE BUSINESS and need to recoup their investment as quickly as possible because their risk in taking on failing businesses is very high. They also line their pockets because they do it for the money. Venture capitalist who specialize in take-overs are always branded the bad guy. The reality is that usually the business model is failing.

Romney was vilified by those who hate capitalism and wish to engage this nation in mob rule.

That's BS. KB Toys in Lee, Mass is a perfect example of the classic mob bust out. Bain just did it legally, barely (Milkin style junk bond financing) but that certainly doesn't make it ethical. Bain "owned the company as you call it" with an 18 mil investment on 320 mil of the "loan package". AS soon as the loan was secured, Bain paid themselves "special dividends" with the borrowed money then charged millions for their "advise" to lay off 60% of the workforce and screwing the long time workers out of earned pensions. Raped is what they did. 40/1 leveraging is a typical Bain ploy and they've done it many times going off shore and outsourcing labor. Soon enough loop holes for this type of "Capitolism" will be closed and it will become unviable and illegal. Ampad is another of the type of Bain deals that ultimately colored Romney and lost him credibility.

Last edited by SteveZee on Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Flyer5 wrote:Still not sure what Romney's money had to do with his character. He is loaded and knows how to manage money so what, Isn't that what we needed. I do think part of why he lost was his ethics did not allow him to play as dirty. He held back way too much in the 2nd debate.

He was a vulture capitolist. They don't have any ethics. As head of Bain he shipped way more jobs to India amd China than he ever created and indebted several companies to the hilt after take over and then paid himself and investors with the money and bankrupted and sold off the assets. People didn't forget those. Then he campaigned on jobs and debt!

He would say or do anything and changes his positions 180 degrees on just about anything and everything. That's why he lost. All he could do was criticize without even having )or at least revealing his plans to change anything and people were not willing to have any faith in that. But this is all old ground and water under the bridge. He lost, it's over, he can go back to pillaging if he chooses.

But wouldn't that make all of us vulture capitalists by that definition. Every time we buy something foreign made because of cost. I buy very little Chinese made products but I am just as guilty. Just sayin

Flyer5 wrote:Still not sure what Romney's money had to do with his character. He is loaded and knows how to manage money so what, Isn't that what we needed. I do think part of why he lost was his ethics did not allow him to play as dirty. He held back way too much in the 2nd debate.

He was a vulture capitolist. They don't have any ethics. As head of Bain he shipped way more jobs to India amd China than he ever created and indebted several companies to the hilt after take over and then paid himself and investors with the money and bankrupted and sold off the assets. People didn't forget those. Then he campaigned on jobs and debt!

He would say or do anything and changes his positions 180 degrees on just about anything and everything. That's why he lost. All he could do was criticize without even having )or at least revealing his plans to change anything and people were not willing to have any faith in that. But this is all old ground and water under the bridge. He lost, it's over, he can go back to pillaging if he chooses.

But wouldn't that make all of us vulture capitalists by that definition. Every time we buy something foreign made because of cost. I buy very little Chinese made products but I am just as guilty. Just sayin

That's true in a way on a small scale. But we are not making decisions that effect people lives on that scale and getting control of a company for so little investment. The trick is the financing of course with very little money of Bain's in there and yet they get control through the promise of securing the finance and bonus for management or some other promise. Then pay themselves with the borrowed money, then its the company saddled with the enormous debt. The "risk" is quite minimal for the rewards they take.

100 Pennies is a dollar. It all adds up. I am sometimes just too rushed to do my research but I do try. If we all promised to put 20% of our purchasing budget toward buying only USA. Companies would get the hint. In reality we are just enablers. I just wish I could buy an American car. Looking at the new fusion when my tdi expires or 400,000 miles whichever comes first.